A scientist-led future: the new draft report for Horizon Europe 2028-2034
- Rita
- 6 days ago
- 6 min read
If you work in European research and innovation, the months between a Commission proposal and the Parliament's response are when the real debate happens. We are in that window right now for the tenth Framework Programme - FP10, or Horizon Europe 2028-2034.
The Commission published its initial proposal in July 2025. The European Parliament's Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE), led by Rapporteur Christian Ehler, has now responded with its Draft Report. This isn't a minor revision. It's a serious challenge to how Europe funds science.
The report proposes a budget of €220 billion - up from the Commission's €175 billion - and a full renovation of programme governance. If adopted, the next seven years of European research will look very different from the last seven.
Putting scientists back in charge
The most important shift in this report is the push for expert-led implementation. For years, practitioners have pointed out that the Commission controls too much of the call design process. The result is top-down programming that often feels disconnected from what is happening in labs and startups.
The draft proposes a new model: calls designed by expert teams with proven track records, overseen by new Research Councils. The approach draws on the Draghi and Heitor reports and mirrors successful national funding models. The goal is to keep political interference out and keep excellence as the only real criterion.
Restoring the pillars
The Commission's proposal used the term "Parts." The Parliament's report changes this back to "Pillars." It matters because it signals continuity and clarity. The proposed structure has four pillars:
A bigger budget, and a real funding gap
The Parliament is pushing for €220 billion. This matches the Heitor report's recommendation and reflects the reality that Europe cannot underinvest in its most effective tool for research and innovation if it wants to stay competitive with the US and China.
Faster funding: the fast track schemes
Time-to-grant is one of the most persistent frustrations in EU funding. From submission to contract, the process can take close to a year. The report introduces two new instruments to address this: Fast Track to Excellence and Fast Track to Innovation.
Both would feature:
Continuously open calls - no more waiting for fixed deadlines
Small-scale collaborative projects up to €2 million
Evaluation results within 10 weeks
A maximum of 30 weeks to sign the grant
A stronger EIC and ERC
The report places a heavy emphasis on independence for both the ERC and the EIC.
For the ERC, it proposes restoring term limits for leadership and strengthening its autonomy from political influence.
For the EIC, the ambition is bigger. The report wants to transform it into a genuine ARPA-type agency - one that takes real risks on deep tech that the private sector isn't ready to back yet. To get there, it proposes:
A high-profile EIC Chair from the deep tech world, answerable to Parliament
Empowered Programme Managers who actively shape portfolios, not just administer them
An independent EIC Board made up of entrepreneurs and investors
The aim is to support innovations from early lab stage (TRL 2-4) all the way through to market deployment (TRL 8-9).
Horizon and the European Competitiveness Fund
The relationship between Horizon Europe and the new European Competitiveness Fund (ECF) is one of the most debated aspects of FP10. The Commission's proposal is clear that the two programmes should be tightly connected - Horizon sits within the broader ECF architecture, shares its policy windows for collaborative research in Pillar II, and uses a single rulebook. The Commission also proposes that financial instruments and budgetary guarantees flow exclusively through the ECF's InvestEU Instrument. In the Commission's vision, this integration is a feature, it is designed to create a continuous pipeline from fundamental research all the way through to market deployment and scale-up.
The Parliament's draft report accepts the connection but draws a firmer line. It argues for an "improved tight connection" rather than subordination. The concern is that if Horizon becomes too embedded in the ECF's structure, its programming will increasingly be driven by industrial and political priorities rather than scientific ones. The Parliament wants Horizon to maintain fully independent programming and insists the ECF's role should be to deploy the results that Horizon produces, not to steer what Horizon researches. This preserves what practitioners and researchers have long valued most about the framework programme: that funding decisions are driven by excellence and scientific merit, not by policy convenience.
New rules on research security
The geopolitical context has changed significantly since FP9 (Horizon Europe) was designed. The draft report introduces a new research security framework, with more rigorous assessments of international cooperation.
Association agreements with third countries - the UK, Switzerland, Canada, and others - would need to be more specific. The Commission would have to evaluate how participation affects Europe's scientific standing, competitiveness, and strategic autonomy. Decisions to restrict participation would go through Delegated Acts, giving Parliament more oversight.
Simplification that means something
Every EU programme promises simplification. Few deliver it. This draft takes a different approach by focusing on legal certainty.
It requires that the Annotated Model Grant Agreement - the reference document that explains how to implement a project - must be published the moment a call opens. In past programmes, these documents were sometimes delayed by years, leaving beneficiaries without clear guidance.
The report also pushes back on the Commission's plan to make lump sums the default funding method. Instead, it argues that lump sums should only be used where they genuinely simplify things. For many organisations, especially universities, personnel unit costs are easier to manage and should remain an option.
Addressing the widening gap
There is still a large gap in research performance between Member States. Pillar IV addresses this through Widening actions, with €7.26 billion - 3.3% of the total budget - allocated specifically to spread excellence across the Union.
A new Seal of Excellence for Widening would allow high-quality projects from widening countries that could not be funded due to budget limits to seek support from other EU funds more easily.
Supporting researchers at risk
The report also proposes a European Fellowship Scheme for Researchers at Risk - a support system for scientists facing displacement or persecution, regardless of country. It includes a crisis response mechanism and allows for remote or hybrid fellowship arrangements when relocation is not possible. This aligns the programme with Europe's stated values on academic freedom and human rights.
Moonshots instead of missions
Regarding the concept of Moonshots, the Commission's original proposal already uses the term prominently and lists ten concrete examples - from building a quantum computer and developing fusion energy, to achieving zero water pollution and making the Moon accessible to Europeans. In the Commission's vision, Moonshots are large-scale, cross-cutting projects that combine Horizon Europe funding with the European Competitiveness Fund, national commitments, and private investment to drive breakthroughs that no single country or programme could deliver alone.
The Parliament's draft report builds on this but reframes how Moonshots should be governed. Where the Commission treats them primarily as funding instruments, the Parliament argues they should be treated as full policy approaches. To qualify as a Moonshot under the Parliament's proposal, a project would need a formal Commission Communication, explicit commitments from Member States, combined funding from Horizon and at least one other EU programme, and SMART objectives - specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound. The goal is to give Moonshots more political weight and clearer accountability, rather than leaving them as loosely defined funding priorities.
Horizon Europe 2028-2034: Commission vs parliament briefly
The gap between the Commission's proposal and the Parliament's draft report is significant. It is not just about money, though the €45 billion budget difference is hard to ignore. It is about governance, speed, and who gets to decide what science gets funded. The table below summarises the six areas where the two positions diverge most sharply. These are the fault lines that will define the Trilogue negotiations between Parliament, Commission, and Council in the months ahead.
Feature | Commission proposal | Parliament draft |
Total budget | €175 billion | €220 billion |
Governance | Commission-led | Expert-led (Research Councils) |
Structure | "Parts" | "Pillars" |
EIC model | Administrative | ARPA-type (independent) |
Time-to-grant | ~7-9 months | 30 weeks max (Fast Track) |
Simplification | Lump sums by default | Unit costs + early MGA |
What happens next for Horizon Europe 2028-2034
This is still a draft. It represents the Parliament's opening position before the Trilogues - the negotiations between Parliament, Commission, and Council. A compromise will be needed.
But the direction is clear. There is strong momentum toward a Horizon that is faster, better funded, and more independent. For researchers and innovators, that is a genuinely positive signal. It suggests a programme shaped more by scientific ambition than by administrative process.
If you are planning a project for 2028 or beyond, now is the time to start mapping your strategy. Instruments like the Fast Tracks and the Competitiveness Windows will create new opportunities - but only for those who are ready.
Stay ahead with NETO Innovation
The transition to Horizon Europe 2028-2034 brings both complexity and real opportunity. At NETO Innovation, we help research and innovation teams navigate exactly this kind of change.
Visit our website to explore our services at NETO Innovation
Subscribe to our blog for regular updates on FP10's legislative progress
Follow us on LinkedIn to join the conversation
Work with us - contact us to find out how we can support your next proposal
Comments